Skip to main content

State v. Mitchell

Citations

  • 195 Conn. App. 199

Syllabus

The defendant, who previously had admitted to a violation of probation and been convicted on guilty pleas of two counts of possession of a controlled substance, appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court denying his amended motion to correct an illegal sentence. In June, 2003, the defendant admitted to a violation of probation, pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of a controlled substance, and entered into a Garvin agreement. In October, 2005, the trial court found a Garvin violation, revoked the defendant's probation, and sentenced him to six years of incarceration for violating his probation and one year of incar- ceration for each of the possession charges to be served concurrently. Thereafter, the defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, which the trial court denied. In his motion, the defendant alleged that the conditions imposed on him by the Garvin agreement expired on March 12, 2004, and that the sentence was imposed illegally because he did not receive notice of the October, 2005 sentencing date as required under the applicable rule of practice (§ 43-29). On appeal to this court, the defendant claimed, inter alia, that the sentence was imposed in an illegal manner in violation of Santobello v. New York (404 U.S. 257) because he was sentenced after the nine month period of the Garvin agreement had ended. Held: 1. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the sentence was imposed in an illegal manner in violation of Santobello; although the defendant contended that he was to be sentenced within nine months of the plea agreement, there was no indication that the terms of the plea agreement included a requirement that the defendant be sentenced within the nine month period and, during the plea canvass, the trial court recited the terms of the plea agreement twice to the defendant and neither of those recitations included language requiring sentencing to take place within the nine month period. 2. The defendant cou

Judges: DiPentima; Elgo; Moll

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.